Recently in Alimony Category

That was the case when Richard Rifkin and Kimberly Dawn Carty decided to divorce.

As they took their battle to family law court in three counties (Marin, Los Angeles, and San Francisco), the father made multiple accusations against Carty - while mostly representing himself in court.

After a Marin County trial judge had heard numerous complaints and allegations about the mother from the ex-husband, the judge had enough of the father. The judge ordered the father to pay a portion of his ex-wife's attorney's fees, declared the father a vexatious litigant, and prohibited the father from filing new litigation without representation from an attorney.

A vexatious litigant is someone who brings meritless legal actions against another person for the sole purpose of harassing an adversary.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times for these two mothers. If you are active on Twitter or Facebook, you've probably seen this popular hashtag #StandWithNanHui.

#StandWithNanHui Case Draws Attention to Domestic Violence

Nan-Hui Jo isn't a celebrity. She is a mother who fled to South Korea with her daughter to escape what she described as emotional and physical abuse by her former partner and her daughter's father.

Jo's former partner, Jesse Charlton, has admitted to grabbing the woman by her throat and tossing her against a wall.

Despite that assertion, a California jury decided the mother was guilty of child abduction.

The judge has delayed sentencing until April 1. However, it's possible that the mother will be convicted and deported. In that case, the child would return to her biological father, Charlton.

Several groups, including Asian-American, domestic violence, and immigration advocates have rallied in support of the mother and recently organized a rally at the San Francisco Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Order Protection.

No one knows what the outcome will be until the judge rules on April 1.

Are you thinking about leaving your spouse but fear that you can't afford a divorce?

There are resources that you can access that can help you reduce your costs.

Resources for Divorces

To find court forms, courthouse information and to run financial calculations, you can get started with California's Judicial Council Forms. You will find divorce and legal separation forms there.

If you are intent on handling your divorce without a lawyer, you will also need to familiarize yourself with California Family Code, Code of Civil Procedure, California Rules of Court, and local rules of court for your county. You will find some of this information on Findlaw's website for attorneys.

Did you hire an attorney to draw up a premarital agreement to protect your assets?

There are instances in which a court can overturn a prenuptial agreement. So be sure to read my suggestions at the end of this article.

There have been cases when an ex-spouse will claim the agreement should be invalidated because he or she signed it under duress.

Take the case of Rasheed Wallace, the former Piston and New York Knicks basketball player, whose combined assets and investments are estimated at $75 million.

That's a lot of money, right?

The Story of Rasheed and Fatima Wallace

Here's the story. Rasheed and his wife Fatima married when he was playing with the Portland Trail Blazers. Since then, he has played for other teams as well.

Eventually, he was traded to the Detroit Pistons and then worked with the team as an assistant coach until last year. Fatima moved there when he was still a player and remains there with the couple's two children - now 10 and 17 - in a 19,000 square-foot house.

The spouses filed for divorce in 2013, and they settled their case. However, Fatima isn't happy with the settlement. Fatima claims that the premarital agreement she signed was "procured by fraud."

Fatima now believes her ex-husband misrepresented his finances and that her ex-husband's attorney had been her counsel. She seeks a more even distribution of his estate.

Divorce and taxes seem to be two inescapable life scenarios for too many people.

Take Texas billionaire Sam Wyly for example. He filed for bankruptcy protection in October but only after a federal jury told him to pay an estimated $400 million in penalties.

His offense was that he'd used offshore trusts to hide his stock trades.

SEC Finds Wealthy Philanthropist Was Hiding Money

Who is this guy? He was a contributor to Republican causes and a charitable donor who made his fortune investing in - and later selling - his interests in two chains: Michaels, the arts-and-crafts stores, and Sterling Software.

Those businesses made him a considerable sum of money. He made even more money when he sold Sterling for $4 billion in 2000 and sold Michaels for $6 billion in 2006.

However, his business dealings weren't, shall we say, always above board. Last May, a Manhattan federal jury found Wyly and the estate of his deceased brother, Charles, guilty of making illegal trades.

The SEC accused Wyly and his brother of recouping an estimated $550 million from at least 700 undisclosed transactions in 40 companies. They then shuffled the money between their Cayman Islands and Dallas accounts.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) didn't take that too well.

There was an interesting article in Forbes the other day about the increasing importance social media posts play in litigation.

The article pointed to a 2009 case, People v. Franco, in which a jury convicted Franco of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence.

Threat on Facebook Has Deadly Consequences

In this case, Franco posted on her Facebook page: "If you find me on the freeway and you can keep up I have a really bad habit of racing random people."

The next day, Franco was traveling 75 miles an hour on a freeway when Henry Chavez started to tailgate her. Whenever she changed lanes, he followed her.

Franco testified that she noticed that her speed was increasing so she tapped on her brakes to slow down, ostensibly to avoid getting a ticket. Not expecting her to brake, Chavez veered to avoid a collision with Franco, lost control of his vehicle and died.

This case is a reminder to everyone that what you say on social media, and especially Facebook, can and will be used against you in court.

In fact, what you post on social media can replace the official story you tell a judge in court.

If your ex-husband offered you a divorce settlement check for $975 million, what would you do?

The majority of divorcing women would probably say "Hallelujah!" all the way to the bank. Right?

Well, that's how billionaires differ from the rest of us. You see, Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm, whose estimated worth rounds at a cool $8 billion according to Forbes, tried to pay off his ex-wife with a multi-million dollar settlement.

The $1 Billion Divorce Settlement Offer that Wasn't Good Enough

Let's just say that she didn't quite appreciate the offer.

His former wife, Sue Ann Arnall, had been an attorney and former executive at Continental Resources and likely felt that after 25 years of marriage, well, she deserved more.

In November, both she and Hamm appealed the trial court's judgment awarding her $1 billion. She didn't think that $1 billion was enough either; meanwhile Hamm thought it was too much.

This type of disagreement is typical in divorce cases. When tensions are high, it's hard for ex-spouses to agree. Reason seldom dominates.

There's another interesting tidbit about this case. In addition to the as-of-yet undetermined divorce settlement, the CEO has already paid Arnall $20 million over the past two and a half years.

Twenty million is a handsome sum for most women, but not Arnall.

It will be interesting to see what happens in this case in the coming months. Unless the parties can come to an agreement soon, the attorneys will continue to litigate, and the spouses will continue to argue and file appeals.

What happens when you decide to initiate divorce while your child is still an infant?

In the case of Jason Green and Courtney Parks, the court awarded joint legal custody but - there's always a but, right? - gave the mother primary physical custody and the final say in situations when the parents couldn't reach an agreement.

The court allocated 15 days a year of visitation to Jason.

Unhappy with the ruling, Jason decided to file an appeal. In his appeal, he said that the court erred:

in its custody determination,

when it stated that Jason needed to refrain from using alcohol before or during his visits, and

when it ordered Jason to pay all expenses related to his visits with his daughter, who had moved with her mother to Florida. Jason lived in Alaska, where the couple had lived while they were married

Can you vent anger about your ex-spouse on Facebook, quote song lyrics that appear threatening, and get away with it?

That is the issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.

After Anthony Elonis's wife left him, took their children and secured a restraining order, Elonis decided to share lyrics from an Eminem song on Facebook and direct his post toward his ex-wife.

One interpretation is that he was simply venting his anger. However, his employer decided it didn't want an employee who threatened people on Facebook and fired him.

Four years ago, a jury convicted Elonis of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 875.(c), which criminalizes interstate transmission of communications that threaten to injure another person. (The Facebook post is considered an interstate transmission.)

The jury in that case sentenced Elonis to 44 months of prison and three years probation.

But was Elonis using Eminem lyrics to threaten his wife? Or was he merely expressing his frustration in general? That's what the Supreme Court will need to decide.

Victory in the ongoing fight to legalize gay marriage continues to be out of reach for many same-sex couples in the United States.

However, the war is far from over.

And let's not forget to mention that news broke last week that mass murderer Charles Mason received permission to tie the knot with a woman 54 years younger than him. Yes, two, loving, law-abiding adults of the same sex still can't marry in many states but a killer can.

Okay, here's what's been happening.

Federal Appellate Decision Prevents Gay Marriage in Four States

A federal appeals court recently denied same-sex couples the right to many in four states: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

In ruling, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrote that it preferred that the battle for marriage equality take place through the political process rather than the legal system.

Perhaps the high court forgot that in California, ballot measures that allowed gay marriage and then banned gay marriage finally had to get settled in the courts.

As you may recall, California voters enacted Proposition 22 in 2000 to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. However, the California Supreme Court declared in 2008 that the provisions of that proposition were contrary to the state constitution.

Gay couples around the state began appearing before court clerks to marry.

Then Proposition 8 surfaced, a new California ballot proposition created by opponents of same-sex marriages. It eventually passed but was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The country's highest court ruled that the proponents of that initiative lacked sufficient legal standing to defend their case.

In short, gay marriage became legal in California.

Lawyers for representing the appellants in the recent case in Michigan promise to continue fighting through the courts. However, the state's attorney general, an advocate of traditional marriage, believes that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling will once and for all ban gay marriage.

International marriages, when a divorce follows, can turn into messy divorces with surprising outcomes.

Consider this case. After marrying in the Ukraine in 2004, Richard Villar and Olga moved to Alaska with the woman's daughter, Linda.

As Olga's immigration sponsor, Richard filed an I-864 affidavit agreeing to support his new wife and stepdaughter at 125 percent of the federal poverty threshold.

Five years later, the Villars divorced and the final papers included Richard's support obligation. Then the mother and daughter moved to California where Olga met and married George Nasif that same year.

Sometime that same year, the daughter moved to Louisiana to live with her stepfather Richard under a temporary guardianship agreement.

Life can get messy.

Couple Battles Over Support Payments

Richard, probably feeling that he didn't need to send support payments now that his ex-wife remarried, stopped his payments to Olga during the first eleven months of 2010.

Not happy about the loss of income, Olga decided to file a motion in Alaska to enforce the divorce decree. Richard responded by making several payments.

The matter proceeded to a hearing. The court ruled that Richard's 2010 support payments needed to meet Alaska's federal poverty level, not California's. Furthermore, the court said the support payments should meet a single-person household level.

In the end, the court decided that Richard didn't owe his ex-wife any further payments. Olga filed an appeal; she prevailed, and Richard filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its June 20 order.

In addition, he filed a motion for relief. In other words, Richard asked the court to reconsider its earlier order.

The same-sex marriage battle tipped in the favor of gay and lesbian couples last week.

On October 7, 2014, the Supreme Court refused to hear same-sex marriage decisions appealed from the lower courts.

Those courts had ruled in favor of gay marriage, and state Attorneys General and interest groups had filed appeals, hoping to gain support from the Supreme Court justices to ban same-sex marriage once and for all.

Instead, the Supreme Court's refusal to consider the appeals nullifies those appeals and allows the affected states' to proceed to allow same-sex marriages.

In many of the cases under appeal, the lower courts based their decisions on rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Those judges had ruled in favor of same-sex marriage because to treat people differently based on sexual orientation is tantamount to being unconstitutional unless there were a compelling government need or argument.

As of this writing, the San Francisco Giants, a wild card pick, just trounced the Washington Nationals in the Division Series. The Giants, who tend to perform well in post-season games, are off to play the San Louis Cardinals.

Sports, it seems, is always in the air.

Unfortunately, the sports channels have been covering more than just runs batted in, home runs, strikes, errors and balls.

There's a new statistic being tabulated: The number of times major league athletes are arrested for domestic violence.

Take the case of Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens. The Atlantic City Police Department claims he struck his fiancée, caused her to lose consciousness, and dragged her body out of the elevator where they argued.

Then there's Adrian Peterson, one of the league's biggest stars and the 2012 NFL MVP. Police arrested him for reckless or negligent injury to a child following a grand jury investigation.

That case involved Peterson's decision to use a tree branch to spank his child, a discipline measure his parents had used on him. His case proceeds to trial on December 1 of this year. In that case, the National Football League banned Peterson from playing pending closure of his case.

In September of this year, Anheuser-Busch issued a public statement expressing its concern about the manner in which the NFL has handled recent domestic violence controversies.